Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 11 May 2004
43 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence the military capability shortfalls highlighted at the EU Defence Ministers’ meeting in early April 2004; the pledges the Government has made in terms of rectifying these shortfalls; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13464/04]
View answer49 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the recent two-day meeting of the EU Defence Ministers in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13388/04]
View answer51 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the development of EU rapid reaction battle groups by 2007 agreed at the April 2004 EU Defence Ministers’ meeting; if Ireland will be participating in such battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13465/04]
View answer65 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the meeting of Defence Ministers of the EU and acceding states that took place in early April 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13463/04]
View answer111 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which he has discussed with his EU colleagues the means of combating terrorism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13663/04]
View answer112 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the discussions he has had with his EU colleagues in the matter of European defence and security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13664/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 43, 49, 51, 65, 111 and 112 together.
I welcome this opportunity to update the House on discussions on European security and defence policy. On 5 and 6 April, I chaired an informal meeting in Brussels of Defence Ministers of EU member states and accession states. A number of such informal meetings have been held in recent years. The meetings have been a useful forum for informal discussions in the context of the ongoing development of European security and defence policy. The April meeting provided us with an opportunity to review and discuss the major issues in the ESDP mandate of the Irish Presidency. As the meeting was informal, it was not a decision-making forum and no formal conclusions were drawn.
On 17 May I will chair a meeting of Defence Ministers in the framework of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, at which formal decisions regarding the issues discussed at the informal meeting will be taken. The first item on the agenda was capabilities development. As the House will be aware, the Irish Presidency has been mandated to take forward work on the further development of European military capabilities to carry out Petersberg Tasks operations. In particular, we were tasked to develop a European capabilities action plan, roadmap and capability improvement chart. The purpose of the roadmap and chart is to facilitate Defence Ministers in guiding the process of capability development to best effect. Ministers reviewed progress to date and supported our approach to developing the roadmap and capability improvement chart. We then turned our attention to the second agenda item, the headline goal 2010. We had a useful exchange of views on the draft headline goal 2010 document as prepared by the EU Council secretariat. The views expressed at the meeting have been useful in guiding ongoing work.
The first day's session concluded with an exchange of views on the EU military rapid response paper as presented by Secretary General and High Representative, Javier Solana. The paper recommends that work on rapid response should be focused on four areas: rapid reaction capability, including qualitative and quantitative criteria; decision-making and planning; relations with the UN; and relations with NATO. The paper refers to the need for rapid response capabilities which should be clearly identifiable in the form of coherent rapid reaction battle groups. There was general support for the battle group concept and Ministers considered the way ahead with a view to achieving concrete results as soon as possible in the field of capabilities available and deployable at very high readiness, including battle groups, in support of the UN. Work on the battle groups concept is ongoing and the aim is to agree a concept by the end of June 2004. An initial battle group capability is envisaged in 2005 and a more extensive capability in 2007. This concluded the first day's meeting.
When the meeting resumed on 6 April, the first matter for our consideration was the proposed European defence agency. The overall aim of the agency is to support the development of the Union's crisis management capabilities. Our debate was informed by an update by the head of the agency establishment team. Ministers voiced continued support for the work of the team with a view to adoption, by June 2004, of the necessary Council decision for the creation of the agency.
As Deputies may recall, the European Council held in Brussels in December 2003 confirmed the EU's readiness for an ESDP follow-on mission to the UN mandated NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia Herzegovina. This was discussed as the final agenda item with particular reference to lessons learned from previous operations. The meeting ended with a working lunch at which discussion on the follow-on mission to SFOR continued in the context of EU-NATO co-operation.
Discussion on terrorism, the other theme for the working lunch, focused on the ESDP aspects of the recently approved European Council declaration. Ministers generally agreed that this issue is primarily for Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in the first instance.
I again remind the House that as the meeting was informal and not a decision-making forum, no formal conclusions were drawn. I will be chairing a meeting of Defence Ministers on 17 May in the framework of the GAERC which will be a formal meeting at which decisions in relation to ESDP will be taken. I look forward to briefing the House on the outcome of that meeting in due course.
What are the perceived military shortfalls in this country as far as the European Union capability improvement chart is concerned? How much will it cost to make up the shortfall? In the light of these commitments, is it expected that Ireland will have to increase its defence budget as a percentage of gross domestic product?
Will the Minister expand on the discussion he has had on Ireland's relationship with NATO? Will the expanding relationship with NATO have any effect on our status as a neutral State?
I do not anticipate any demands on the Exchequer in regard to the capability improvement chart and the shortfalls, as they relate to countries that have a significant investment in the defence area, whereas Irish investment up to now has been primarily related to basic needs that had to be met independent of European security and defence issues. All the acquisitions in which we have been involved are primarily directed at upgrading facilities and equipment to meet our UN requirements. I do not envisage any change in the demands made on Government by me as Minister for Defence.
It was always envisaged, notwithstanding the recognition of the independence of NATO and the EU, that in certain areas the relationship between the EU and NATO would be developed. Deputy Gormley will be familiar with the Irish contingents involvement in the UN mandated missions, SFOR and KFOR, run by NATO. These primarily reside around the heavier type of transport equipment and facilities for Petersberg Tasks operations or UN missions where there would not be the necessity for the duplication of assets. It would make no sense that member states involved in Petersberg Tasks operations in EU-UN mandated mission would purchase equipment that was already available, particularly equipment used in the heavy transport area.
There are no implication for our traditional military neutrality in anything in which we are engaged. We are primarily trying to improve the capacity in the European Union to undertake Petersberg Tasks and not have a repeat of the situation where countries stood idly by during terrible atrocities in Europe and seemed incapable of intervening. The debate on the rapid reaction force and other areas is primarily to ensure that UN mandated missions can be undertaken more quickly and effectively with greater inter-operability and the quality of what we do, both militarily and civil, can be enhanced by these arrangements.
What is the role of the meetings of the Defence Council, given that NATO countries as well as neutral countries such as Ireland and Austria are involved?
Was the deteriorating situation in Iraq discussed and, if so, what conclusions were drawn and were views expressed on the role of UN troops in Iraq?
Discussion took place on UN-EU relations, but not in the context of Iraq. As I mentioned in the course of my reply, these informal meetings take place between Defence Ministers over a number of years under different administrations to enhance the European security and defence policy and to examine the historically proven gaps in capabilities and to what extent, without compromising fundamental principles, we and others can assist each other in the provision of Petersberg Tasks operations, undertaking missions more effectively and quickly and conflict prevention.
We have never exercised our minds in the past to the degree we might have done on the actions that need to be taken on conflict prevention. We seem to undertake the missions when the holocaust, the genocide, the murder and mayhem has taken place. I share the concerns of Members at the reasons we are not in a position to try to offset or intervene in developing crises at an earlier stage. That calls for working together, inter-operability, partnership, training exercises and so on.
In the context of European defence and security, to what extent does the Minister expect responsibility to fall on the Department of Defence and the institutions of the State in combating terrorism? What role does he expect the Defence Forces to play and to what extent have his EU colleagues impressed on the Minister the role to be played by the Irish authorities? Are the available facilities adequate to meet all eventualities in such circumstances?
As Deputy Durkan knows, I chair the task force on emergency planning. At all those meetings, one of the first reports is from the Garda authorities and the Defences Forces on the threat assessment. Most of the work involves Departments and agencies gearing up their facilities whether in terms of protocols, investment in vaccines by the Department of Health and Children, improvement of safety procedures on aircraft and in airports, the responsibilities of the local authorities, the question of how to deal with a nuclear accident and the acquisition by my Department of detection and screening kits and of nuclear, biological and chemical suits — I think we have purchased approximately 7,000 of those. In the first instance, it is a continual assessment by the Garda and the Defence Forces and then upgrading, getting greater co-ordination and ensuring that all the elements that go into emergency planning are developed and enhanced and are capable of dealing with as much as we can humanly think about.
As we all know, a priority of the EU seems to be the development of a common defence policy whereby member states would come to each other's assistance. At these ministerial meetings which the Minister chairs during the Presidency, is the formulation of a common defence policy ever discussed? Is the Minister precluded from participating in such discussions due to our so-called neutrality? At what stage is the common defence policy? Does the Minister believe we should participate?
We do not have discussions on a common defence policy. We have made it absolutely clear on numerous occasions that any discussions, decisions or recommendations on going down that road, which is not on the map at present, would have to be put to the people. We have no intention or proposals in that regard.
At the meeting on 17 May, will the Minister raise the question of the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners with his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon? As an EU member state, we have a duty to raise it. In the context of NATO, will the Minister raise it when he meets his American counterpart?
Deputy Gormley knows the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have already expressed their grave concern in regard to the pictures that have appeared in the media. They are abominable and I will have no hesitation in raising my voice at the appropriate time in this regard. In terms of human rights and the dignity of people, anything done which sets out to humiliate and degrade persons to that degree is totally objectionable and reprehensible.
Do I take it that at the Council meeting, the Defence Ministers will issue a statement reaffirming the fundamental protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
Obviously, we must conclude our work on that agenda. This item has arisen in recent days but, as I have indicated, I will be anxious to use my voice in whatever way I can to enforce what is recognised all over the world as the way prisoners should be dealt with. As I said, what happened in Iraq is totally reprehensible and objectionable.
On the question of shortfalls in military capability, is the Minister telling the House that as far as our military capability is concerned, there are no real shortfalls? If there are shortfalls, will the Minister be quite specific in outlining them?
I already indicated to Deputy Gormley that these are in the heavy end of military equipment. As the Deputy knows, I have an ongoing acquisition policy funded primarily by the sale of assets to improve the ability and capacity of our Defence Forces in terms of their safety and our ability to undertake missions previously impossible for us. Three or four years ago, there would have been no way I could have recommended to the House, the Government or to the people to send a mission to Liberia. Were it not for the acquisition of the DROPS, the armoured personnel carriers, the medical equipment and the communications systems involving up to €100 million investment, we could not have undertaken that type of mission. I have said many times that I want to have an independent approach to the missions we undertake under United Nations' mandates. To do so, we need our own equipment and facilities. As I said, we could not have undertaken the Liberian mission two or three years ago but for these acquisitions.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
